Indeed. I had a discussion with another guy in my band last week as to the difference between sus4 and add2, and why the add2 is not called a sus2. I tried to explain a suspension means you are coming down in pitch from that note, while the add2 is going up in pitch. His eyes went blank as I tried to explain it. Fortunately, the keyboard player had college theory and understood. But even then, I had to keep him off the 7th because the chord was not a 9th chord because the add2 on the V chord going to the i(minor) needed the more open feeling with the melody ascending instead of descending.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
How would you write this?
- Thread starter bearhart74
- Start date
That's why that add2 chord in the song I reference is interesting, because it resolves down to the tonic, so omitting the third would make more sense, but the way it is used is not like a mid-phrase cadence, it's more like a deceptive predominant. It's neat songwriting.
- Oct 7, 2000
- 18,619
- 38,939
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Musicman basses
...and I'd bet big money on it that you guys are much more intellectual people than emotional.I've been trapped in cars on road trips with guys talking like the above and it makes me want to jump out of the window. At 90 miles an hour. But I get it. It's definitely a language of its own, and one that people can talk hours on.
To me, a Gadd2 is nothing more than a horrible typo
.
@Joe Nerve Music is a language too me and music theory is grammar. Some hate it and some love it, some can express themselves without ever having learned it and some use it as a tool to find the right words or phrases. Knowing theory just helps me sometimes to find the right notes. Kinda like notes you have written down before you are supposed to hold a speech. Some people don't need them but I certainly do sometimes.
This. [Or start in the key of G, which fits some of the progression, and then do this.]
All this here is what originally put me off to wanting to learn music theory. While it can be incredibly helpful, I think it can also be a major hindrance. I never want to "think" the notes that might work in a song. I want to hear and feel them.
I believe too, and I'm putting no judgement behind this, that for the most part we all have a creative foundation in one of 3 places. Our heads, our hearts, or our crotches. And they of course bleed into one another, but I think we're creatively centered in one of those areas. Think of Elvis's, or Jeff Buckley, or Neil Peart (they're the first 3 shining examples that popped into my head)... and what area they might all be creating from.
So yeah... I'm centered in my heart, radiating toward my crotch. My head doesn't come into play much, which might explain why a lot of the things in my life have gone the way they have
Respectfully I tend to agree with you, which is why any time I give theory advice, I'm careful to tie it in with specific genres, bands, and/or songs. ("This chord progression has a blues/swing sound, like a Stray Cats song for example.") I agree that music theory can seem abstract and dry, if it's not tied to specific musical examples.
That said, I don't think this particular discussion is actually a "music theory" question. Rather, I think it is a "music literacy" question ("How would you write this?"). You don't need to know a lick of music theory to read & write music notation, just like you don't need to know any grammar rules to read & write English. For example think of all the classical musicians who can sight-read sheet music at a very high level, but to them it is just a bunch of notes, they don't know the theory behind it and wouldn't be able to compose a symphony of their own.
A rough analogy why key signatures are so important: If you say, "he is bringing the paper plates for the picnic," I don't know who "he" is. Do you mean Steve? Joe? Wally? Chuck? This is not a grammar problem; it is a "basic information is missing" problem. Likewise, music notation with a missing or incorrect key signature is not a music theory problem; it is a "basic information is missing" problem. The key signature of a song in music is like the subject of a sentence in grammar. Knowing whether the song is in C Major, Bb Major, or F# Minor is like knowing whether it's Steve, Joe, Wally, or Chuck who is bringing the paper plates.
There have been some well-intentioned suggestions to simply notate the song without a key signature, but IMHO that creates more problems than it solves. ("Don't worry about the paper plates; we'll figure it out when we get there.")
Last edited:
I would disagree with this to some extent, firmly but respectfully. I think you're giving key sigs far more importance than they actually have. Don't get me wrong, I always try to use the most "correct" one I can. Key sigs are valuable and useful. But they're not as crucial as you suggest.
The main reason is that key sigs don't actually determine keys; they merely *reflect* them. They aren't fundamental information, the way chordal movement is; they are essentially a notational convenience meant to minimize the number of accidentals you have to write. They don't make the key happen; they just make it easier to write and read in the key established by the harmony and melody. It's really not much more than that. Sort of like having a bag to put your paper plates in is probably easier than just carrying them in your hand.
What determines the key is *what the notes and chords in the piece are actually doing.* The proof of this is that it's perfectly possible to write a piece that's completely and unambiguously in the key of, say, E major without using a key sig of 4 sharps. You just have to use a lot of accidentals. The thing is still in E no matter what the key sig says. There's a Bach piece, I forget which, that's commonly referred to as the "Dorian" because the key sig has no sharps and flats. Yet when you look at the piece, it's clearly in D minor, not D dorian, because that's what the chords and notes say it is. It just means a few more accidentals were used. It doesn't matter that there was no Bb in the key sig; it's still not D dorian.
There's also the point that a lot of music doesn't adhere, completely or even at all, to the accepted practices of functional harmony, and for which the idea of a key, and thus a standard key sig, isn't entirely applicable. Check out how many more modern jazz pieces in, say, the Real Book are written with no sharps and flats. Two examples: "Juju" and "Miyako" by Wayne Shorter.
Again, what matters is what the notes and chords are actually doing. If you saw a progression of G Em Am7 D7, I'm sure you'd know you were in the key of G even if the key sig was bare, and you'd know what to do.
All that said, in this example I'd probably just use G major (1 sharp) and call it good. But the earlier suggestion to go without and just notate the accidentals is not beyond the pale, much less illiterate.
Last edited:
Im sorry, and I know we agree on most things, but this is plain wrong, almost offensive. Knowledge of theory to a level well beyond what gets discussed in most threads here is a prerequisite for continued instrumental study beyond the basic grades at which most kids stop in their early teens (and which will not get you an audition in anything but a kids local orchestra). At least that's how it is here.
